http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RUP DIAMONDS & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/01/1989

BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  674            1989 SCR  (1)  13  1989 SCC  (2) 356        JT 1989 (1)     7  1989 SCALE  (1)1

ACT:     Constitution   of   India,   1950:   Articles   32   and 226---Imports  and Exports Controller--Declining to  revali- date  and  endorse  six  Imprest  licences--Unexplained  and inordinate delay in filing writ petition-Court--Whether  can decline to interfere.

HEADNOTE:     Petitioners,  a recognised Export House for purposes  of the  Import-Export Policy, 1982-83 were granted six  imprest licences for the import of uncut and unset diamonds with the obligation  to  fulfil  certain export  commitment  for  the export of India, of cut and polished diamonds. They did  not seek  the revalidation and endorsement for OGL items  within the  time prescribed under Paragraph 185(4) of  the  Import- Export  Policy  1982-83 (AM 1983). Only in  the  year  1986, after a lapse of several years from the completion of  their export-obligations,  they sought such revalidation  and  en- dorsement.  The  Joint Chief Controller of Imports  and  Ex- ports,  by two orders dated 5.8.1986 and 9.4.1986,  declined the  request,  on  grounds of inordinate  delay  in  seeking revalidation and endorsement, and on merits and permissibil- ity of the claim.     In  the Writ Petition, the petitioners challenged  these orders contending that in view of the grant of  revalidation of  imprest licences of two other Export Houses,  consequent upon  their writ petitions being allowed by the  High  Court and  the Special Leave Petitions of the  Government  against the decision being dismissed by the Supreme Court, rejection by  the  authorities of the petitioners’ claim  for  similar revalidation, and endorsement of their imprest licences, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the  Constitu- tion inasmuch as the grounds for refusal put forward by  the authorities  in  those cases were exactly similar  to  those preferred in the case of the petitioners, and those  grounds had  been  found to be insufficient in law  to  support  the refusal, and that there was no basis for any distinction  to be made in the case of petitioners who had made their demand for  revalidation after the High Court’s decision in one  of those cases. Dismissing the Writ Petition,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

14     HELD: Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not  pursued for several years. They were not  vigilant  but were  content  to be dormant and.close to sit on  the  fence till  somebody  else’s case came to be decided.  Their  case cannot be considered on the anology of one, where a law  had been declared unconstitutional and void by a Court, so as to enable  persons to recover monies paid under the  compulsion of  a  law later so declared void. There is  also  an  unex- plained,  inordinate delay in preferring this writ  petition which is brought after almost a year after the first  rejec- tion. [18B-C]     Apart  altogether from the merits of the  other  grounds for rejection, the inordinate delay in preferring the  claim before the authorities as also the delay in filing the  writ petition  before this Court does not pursuade this Court  to interfere in this matter. [18E]     The rejection to this Writ Petition shall not  prejudice petitioners’  case in the appeal, if such a right of  appeal is  available  under the appeal procedures  in  the  policy. [19A]     Durga  Prasad  v. Chief Controller, I & E,  1969(2)  SCR 861, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 411 of 1987. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.     T.U.  Mehta,  A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran,  Harish  N. Salve,  N.D.  Garg, Rajiv K. Garg, P.H. Parekh,  Ms.  Ayesha Misra and M.N. Shroff for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VENKATACHALIAH, J- By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution,  Messrs.  Rup Diamonds,  a  Registered  Export House,  assail the validity of the decisions dated  9.4.1986 and  5.8.1986 of the Joint Chief Controller of  Imports  and Exports  declining  to re-validate and endorse  six  Imprest Licenses  for import of Open General Licence items upon  the fulfillment  by the petitioners of their export  obligations under the Imprest-Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appro- priate  writs  to  the Authorities to  re-validate  the  six Imprest  Licences,  with  appropriate  endorsement  for  the import of open General items under the Import Export  Policy of 1982-83 (A.M. 1983). 15     This writ petition came up for preliminary heating along with  Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2579 of  1987  and 2580  of 1987 preferred by the Union of India seeking  leave to  appeal from two Judgments of the Division Bench  of  the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two other cases.     Petitioners  are a recognised Export-House for  purposes of the Import-Export Policy, 1982-83. They applied for,  and were  granted,  six  imprest  licences:  (1)  2932347  dated 31.7.1982  for CIF value of Rs.65,28,500; (2)  293259  dated 20.8.1982  for Rs.1,14,49,263; (3) 0470538  dated  11.5.1982 for   Rs.1,43,76,770;  (4)  0449604  dated   12.5.1981   for Rs.1,32,39,130; (5) 0468397 dated 16.4.1982 for Rs.5,21,747; and (6) 2927607 dated 29.4.1980 for Rs. 1,47,16,238, for the import  of uncut and unset diamonds with the  obligation  to fulfill  certain  export commitment for the export,  out  of India, of cut and polished diamonds of the FOB value, stipu- lated  in each of the imprest--licences.  Petitioners  claim that,  pursuant to the said imprest licences, they  had  im- ported  uncut  and unset diamonds and  had  also  discharged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

their  export  obligations  by exporting  cut  and  polished diamonds of the requisite value as evidenced by the  Redemp- tionCertificates  which  are annexed as annexure  V  to  the memorandum of writ petition.     3.  Petitioners  claim that in terms of para  185(4)  of ImportExport  Policy,  1982-83, they were  entitled  to  the facility for the import of OGL items as is available in  the case of replenishment licences issued to export houses under clauses  (1) and (3) of para 185 of A-M 1983  policy.  Para- graph 185(4) of the AM 1983 provided:               (4)  The  facility  for import  of  OGL  items               available  in subpara (3) above, may  also  be               allowed,  on merits, to Export Houses  against               their  advance/imprest licences on account  of               which  they are rendered ineligible to  obtain               REP licence. In such cases, however, the value               upto which the OGL import may be allowed, will               not exceed the value to which the Export House               would  have been eligible to the REP  licence,               had he not obtained advance/imprest licence in               question.  This facility will be available  to               the  Export House after he has discharged  the               export   obligation   imposed   on   the   ad               vance/imprest  licence. Therefore, if  by  the               time,  the  Export House becomes  eligible  to               this facility, the advance/imprest licence has               expired, or, if the original               16               validity left unused by that time is less than               six  months,  the  licensing  authority   will               revalidate the licence simultaneously so as to               give  to  the  licence-holder a  time  of  six               months  for the purpose of importing OGL  item               under this facility.     However,  the petitioners did not bestir  themselves  to seek  the  revalidation and endorsement for  OGL  items  for quite  some  time thereafter. It was only in the  year  1986 they  sought  such revalidation and  endorsement.  That  was after a lapse of several years from the completion of  their export-obligations.  The Joint Chief Controller  of  Imports and  Exports by his two decisions, one dated  5.8.1986  per- taining  to the Imprest Licence 2927607 dated 29.4.1980  and the  other  dated  9.4.1986, pertaining to  the  other  five Imprest--Licences declined the request. These two orders are challenged in the writ petition.     The grounds for refusal in both the decisions are  simi- lar, except for the reference to certain relevant dates. The grounds are, broadly, on two aspects. The first pertains  to the  inordinate delay in seeking revalidation  and  endorse- ment. On this the communication says:               "We are surprised to have received your letter               No.  nil dated 21.4.1986 forwarding  therewith               Imprest  Licence No. 2927607  dated  29.4.1980               (exchange  control copy) for the period AM  83               for grant of revalidation and endorsement  for               import  of  OGL  items  without  debiting  the               licence in terms of para 1985 of Import Policy               for  the period 1982-83 after 5 years  of  the               expiry  of  the licence for which  the  export               obligation period was discharged on  25.10.80,               22/25.10.80,   29.10.80,   19.5.81,    5.5.81,               22.6.81, 5.5.81, 20.5.81, 29.6.81, &  22.9.81.               In  other words, you have made a  request  for               revalidation and endorsement under para 185 of               AM  83 Policy after 4 years and 7 months  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             the discharge of the export obligation. It is,               therefore, obvious that you have not cared  to               apply  immediately after discharge  of  export               obligation and as such your request is grossly               time-barred  ......  " The second aspect is as to the merits and permissibility  of the claim. The communication says: 17               "  ......  More-over, in terms of para  185(7)               to AM 83 Import Policy, Import of OGL items by               Export  houses  under the provisions  to  sub-               paras  (4)  and (5) of para 185  of  the  said               policy  is subject to the condition  that  the               shipments of goods shall take place within the               validity of the OGL i.e. 31.3.86 or within the               validity  period of the Import Licence  itself               (within grace period) whichever date is earli-               er.  Since this date is over and  the  request               has been made after 4 years and 7 months after               the  discharge of export obligation,  question               of  permitting  facility under  the  aforesaid               provision does not arise. Besides, there is no               provision in the Import-Export procedures  for               the period 1985-86 for grant of  revalidation,               in  which  period your request  has  been  re-               ceived. Para 73 of the said procedures  states               that  no  revalidation of import  licences  of               emergency   licences   for   CCPs   will    be               allowed  .......  "     The  present writ petition challenge these  orders.  The petitioners  allege that their claims are similar  to  those made by M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co., and M/s. H. Patel & Co.  who had  filed writ petitions No. 2477 of 1984 and No.  1465  of 1984 respectively in the High Court of Judicature at  Bombay for  the  issue of appropriate writs to the  authorities  to revalidate  the Imprest-Licences, that those writ  petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judges of the High Court, whose  decisions came to be affirmed in appeal by the  Divi- sion  Bench; that Special Leave Petitions 4670 of  1986  and 7389 of 1985, respectively, preferred by the Union of India, against the said two judgments of the Bombay High Court were dismissed  by this Court and that, therefore, the  rejection by  the authorities, of the petitioners’ claim  for  similar revalidation of the six Imprest-Licences and endorsement for OGL  items would, in view of grant of revalidation  and  en- dorsement in those cases, be discriminatory and violative of Article  14.  It is contended for the petitioners  that  the grounds  for refusal put-forward by the authorities  in  the case  of  M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co., and M/s. H. Patel  &  Co., were  exactly  similar  to those proffered in  the  case  of petitioners  also and that those grounds had been  found  by the courts to be insufficient in law to support the refusal. Petitioners  say that they made the demand for  revalidation immediately  after the decision of the Bombay High Court  in M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co. ’s case and that the rejection of the petitioners’ claim is wholly discriminatory, as there was no basis for any distinction to be made in petitioners’ case. Apart  altogether from the merits of the grounds for  rejec- tion-- 18 on  which it cannot be said that the mere rejection  of  the Special  Leave Petitions in the cases of M/s. Ripal Kumar  & Co., and M/s. H. Patel & Co., could by itself, be  construed as  the imprimatur of this Court on the correctness  of  the decisions  sought to be appealed against--there is one  more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

ground  which basically sets the present case  apart.  Peti- tioners  are re-agitating claims which they had not  pursued for  several years. Petitioners were not vigilant  but  were content  to  be dormant and chose to sit on the  fence  till somebody  else’s case came to be decided. There case  cannot be  considered  on the anology of one where a law  had  been declared  unconstitutional  and void by a Court,  so  as  to enable  persons to recover monies paid under the  compulsion of  a  law later so declared void. There is  also  an  unex- plained,  inordinate delay in preferring this writ  petition which is brought after almost an year after the first rejec- tion. From the orders in M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co. ’s case  and M/s  H.  Patel & Co. ’s case it is seen that in  the  former case  the application for revalidation and  endorsement  was made  on  12.3.1984 within four months of the  date  of  the redemption  certificate dated 16.11. 1983 and in the  latter case the application for revalidation was filed on 20.6.1984 in about three months from the Redemption Certificate  dated 9.3.1984.     6. On a consideration of the matter we think that, apart altogether  from the merits of the other grounds for  rejec- tion,  the inordinate delay in preferring the  claim  before the  authorities as also the delay in filing the writ  peti- tion  before this .Court should, by themselves, pursuade  us to decline to interfere.     In Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, I & E, [1969] 2 SCR 861 this Court observed:                         "  .....  It is well known that  the               exchange  position  of this  country  and  the               policy  of the Government  regarding  Interna-               tional  Trade varies from year to year and  it               would  be rather odd for this Court to  direct               that an import licence be granted in the  year               1968 in respect of alleged defaults  committed               by  the Government in 1959 or 1962.  In  these               matters  it is essential that persons who  are               aggrieved  by orders of the Government  should               approach  the High Court after exhausting  the               remedies  provided by law, rule or order  with               utmost expedition." It  is stated in the two communications rejecting the  claim of the 19 petitioners  that petitioners are entitled to an  appeal  as laid  down  in the appeal-procedures in the policy.  If  any such  a right of appeal is available, this  order  rejecting the  writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners’ case  in any such appeal.     8. We, accordingly, decline to interfere and reject this writ petition. N.P.V.                            Petition dismissed. 20